IUMS.L vs. ISAC.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

IUMS.L (iShares S&P 500 Materials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and ISAC.L (iShares MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - IUMS.L is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Capped 35/20 Materials Index NTR, while ISAC.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IUMS.L returned 4.91%/yr vs 11.38%/yr for ISAC.L. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IUMS.L charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ISAC.L.

Performance

IUMS.L vs. ISAC.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares S&P 500 Materials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (IUMS.L) and iShares MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (ISAC.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IUMS.L achieves a 12.52% return, which is significantly higher than ISAC.L's 11.54% return.

IUMS.L

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: 0.75%
• YTD: 12.52%
• 6M: 16.74%
• 1Y: 18.25%
• 3Y*: 11.05%
• 5Y*: 4.91%
• 10Y*: —

ISAC.L

• 1D: -0.10%
• 1M: 4.26%
• YTD: 11.54%
• 6M: 13.01%
• 1Y: 28.81%
• 3Y*: 21.19%
• 5Y*: 11.38%
• 10Y*: 12.63%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IUMS.L vs. ISAC.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IUMS.L iShares S&P 500 Materials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	12.52%	10.90%	-0.92%	12.41%	-11.90%	26.93%	20.54%	22.92%	-15.68%	19.22%
ISAC.L iShares MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	11.54%	22.36%	17.81%	22.57%	-18.16%	18.85%	15.66%	25.77%	-9.73%	17.39%

Correlation

The correlation between IUMS.L and ISAC.L is 0.59, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.59
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.67
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2017	0.76

The correlation between IUMS.L and ISAC.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.59 (1 year) to 0.76 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IUMS.L vs. ISAC.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IUMS.L	ISAC.L
Basic Materials	91.5%	2.9%
Consumer Cyclical	8.5%	8.5%
Industrials	1.1%	9.0%
Communication Services	-	8.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.4%
Energy	-	3.6%
Financial Services	-	17.3%
Healthcare	-	7.8%
Real Estate	-	1.2%
Technology	-	33.9%
Utilities	-	2.2%

Return for Risk

IUMS.L vs. ISAC.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

IUMS.L

IUMS.L Risk / Return Rank: 31
IUMS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
IUMS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
IUMS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 29
IUMS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
IUMS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 32

ISAC.L

ISAC.L Risk / Return Rank: 73
ISAC.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
ISAC.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
ISAC.L Omega Ratio Rank: 73
ISAC.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
ISAC.L Martin Ratio Rank: 74

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

IUMS.L vs. ISAC.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares S&P 500 Materials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (IUMS.L) and iShares MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (ISAC.L). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	IUMS.L	ISAC.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.10	2.31	-1.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.63	3.42	-1.79
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.43	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.58	3.27	-1.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.71	13.72	-9.01
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IUMS.L vs. ISAC.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IUMS.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.10, which is lower than the ISAC.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IUMS.L and ISAC.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IUMS.L	ISAC.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.10	2.31	-1.21
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.26	0.73	-0.47
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.79	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.48	0.75	-0.27

Drawdowns

IUMS.L vs. ISAC.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IUMS.L drawdown since its inception was -35.81%, which is greater than ISAC.L's maximum drawdown of -33.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IUMS.L and ISAC.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	IUMS.L	ISAC.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.81%	-33.82%	-1.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.51%	-8.77%	-2.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.80%	-16.56%	-6.24%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.24%	-26.07%	+0.83%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-33.82%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.42%	-0.72%	-2.70%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.06%	-4.69%	-2.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.87%	2.10%	+1.77%

Volatility

IUMS.L vs. ISAC.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares S&P 500 Materials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (IUMS.L) has a higher volatility of 6.12% compared to iShares MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (ISAC.L) at 3.84%. This indicates that IUMS.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ISAC.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IUMS.L	ISAC.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.12%	3.84%	+2.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.40%	9.77%	+3.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.52%	12.40%	+4.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.90%	15.57%	+3.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.07%	15.95%	+4.12%

IUMS.L vs. ISAC.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

IUMS.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than ISAC.L's 0.20% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

IUMS.L vs. ISAC.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither IUMS.L nor ISAC.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IUMS.L and ISAC.L in my portfolio?

IUMS.L and ISAC.L have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, IUMS.L or ISAC.L?

On fees, IUMS.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, IUMS.L or ISAC.L?

IUMS.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for ISAC.L.

What is the main difference between IUMS.L and ISAC.L?

IUMS.L is categorized as S&P 500, while ISAC.L is Global Equities. IUMS.L tracks S&P 500 Capped 35/20 Materials Index NTR, while ISAC.L tracks MSCI ACWI Index. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for IUMS.L and 0.20% for ISAC.L.